Magnus Berg (qmgb@bull.se)
Tue, 14 Oct 1997 05:21:46 +0100
> I'm just used to subject to be a bearer of some intellectual patterns. In
> that case, if only a subject can be an observer then there would not be any
> QE before the intellectual patterns were developed, which we agreed is not
> true. So, if two sub atomic particles collided and there was no scientist
> to register the collision, was there still a quality event? If we agree
> that QE still happened and that subject does not have to be intelligent,
> then which of two particles is a subject? Of course, it's all just a matter
> of terminology, each particle can imagine itself to be a subject, and for
> us scientists they both are just a 'dust in the wind' and we are the real
> subjects.
I guess it's possible to exchange the subject and object in every QE. You
could say that I hear what you say, which puts me as the subject.
Or you could say that you say something to me, which puts you as
the subject, not only grammatically.
The MoQ says (I think) that this is true for every QE. For example,
in a twin star system, both stars are affected by the other's
gravity, so both are subjects to themselves and the other is the object.
And the two sub atomic particles collision is of course no exception.
Both are affected by the other and both are subjects from their PoV.
Magnus
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:05 CEST